China is eradicating a parasitic corruption whose sole goal is endless growth without regard for the well-being of the host?
Oh, you meant cancer...They're not maximizing their profits while doing so?!
gotta let'em suffer longer and more importantly make more profits.
Have you considered all shareholders that might get a smaller dividend this quarter?
Xi has gone too far, there needs to be a UN resolution condemning this.
Have we asked the cancer first if it's okay with being cured? No, China hasn't, therefore they are satanic.
In the article, no one is saying anything bad about this Chinese company having devised a cheaper technique (they're charging $75K USD vs others charging ~$400K USD). The complaint is against decreased oversight and individual hospitals misusing the treatment and causing harm in the name of profit:
There is concern among researchers, regulatory experts and drugmakers themselves that allowing hospitals to market treatments for a fee could cause profit-making to trump ethical considerations. In a 2016 case widely reported in the Chinese media, a 22-year-old college student with a rare type of tissue cancer called synovial sarcoma died after going through an experimental cell therapy at a Beijing hospital.
“Hospitals can become both players and referees at the same time”
Before his death, the patient posted an essay online claiming the hospital had falsely advertised the treatment’s effectiveness, and that Chinese search engine Baidu Inc. had displayed the hospital’s advertising so that it appeared like a credible search result rather than a paid commercial. The essay went viral and sparked an outcry on Chinese social media over the ethics of private hospitals and the regulation of therapies for serious illnesses.
Censured by the Cyberspace Administration of China, Baidu responded by restricting the number of sponsored posts to 30% of a results page, and established a 1 billion yuan fund to fight fraud. The hospital did not respond to requests for comment.
The reason why this kind of article gets mocked on Hexbear is because very commonly, when China makes some kind of positive improvement, Western news articles have to attach a "BUT..." afterwards, even if the concern is extremely minor.
The "BUT AT WHAT COST" of the thread name isn't just a meme, it's a common occurrence with articles about China. Here are some examples: https://twitter.com/slipknothooh/status/1433496026795630598?lang=en
An achievement from China can never just stand on its own, it always has to be criticized, whereas achievements from Western nations rarely get this treatment.
whereas achievements from Western nations rarely get this treatment
I have to disagree, commercial news loves controversy and the negative, they always pull this shit, regardless of country. Even worse, what we have here is a clickbait headline that isn't even descriptive of the article
Come on, you must see a ton of popsci articles like "This invention might end aging forever!" and "School teacher invents new green fuel" and "Why is California leading the world in [whatever]?"
Their point is that Approved countries get fluff pieces like that while China gets, from comparable material, a source of criticism that is deemed important enough to put in the headline.
Sure, US news doesn't paint the US with a broad brush, but it does paint France, Germany, Canada, Mexico, Australia, and pretty much every other country with a broad brush. Internally, commercial media does it to US states, cities, races, religions, political parties, and more
Even worse, what we have here is a clickbait headline that isn't even descriptive of the article
the point is that positive news out of China gets given a clickbait title that plays up the controversy while positive news from the west gets given a clickbait title that oversells the promise of the technology. why is this an observable trend in media, I wonder...
Doesn't matter, they're writing titles to deliberately pose China in a bad light and then they're burying the lede.
They know full well what this does, everyone does. Including you, defending it.
There's some older work, specifically Smith, W., Lawrence, F., et al (2007) building off of Matheson, R. (1954) that looks at the disastrous societal consequences the unintended side effects that these cancer cures can produce.
